Taking One For The Team

Where I work (at least, for the time being, ha ha), we often play host to a company who use our facilities to run speed awareness courses for those caught a few clicks over the limit and who choose to pay £80 to be talked at, rather than have points on their licences. One of my duties is to check these people in and direct them to the correct location for the course. In this role, especially with the conscientious ones arriving half an hour early, I often have a brief chat and try to make them feel, at least temporarily, welcome. Some are just in a bad mood and don't want to talk (which is fair enough) and one lady was even highly abusive to me - I think because she blamed me for her getting caught in the first place. Perhaps the uniform triggered something. Most are in a cheerful but resigned frame of mind, and prepared to have a laugh about being put through all this nonsense for doing 34 in a 30 limit, or whatever. A few arrive in hot hatches or well-worn Beemers, but the majority are ordinary folk that you wouldn't give a second glance to in a car park, let alone think that they were dangerous or aggressive hooligans.

What has amazed me, however, is the number that say "Oh, it wasn't me: I took the blame for my husband because he needs his car for work." Yes, it's usually women who do this. Sound familiar?

Equally amazing is how everyone who has admitted this to me has done so with a laugh, as if it's no big deal. What I don't mention, but is at the back of my mind, is that they have moved - perhaps ignorant of the fact - from a traffic offence to a criminal one. From what is a minor irritant that most people have a bit of sympathy with, to something that, if they were caught, could land them in prison and leave them with a criminal record. Perverting the course of justice is not a trivial thing, nor should it be.

Perhaps a high-profile case involving someone famous (well, famous-ish) will give people a different perspective?

None of this really affects me at the moment. Anna has kept her licence clean all her life (although I think there's been a fair bit of good luck involved) and mine is currently in one of its clean phases. On the one occasion when I was caught speeding in her car, she shopped me without a second thought. But if I was on nine points and was caught by a camera, would I ask Anna to take one for the team? I regard myself as law-abiding and I would like to think that I wouldn't. But I can't say categorically. Sometimes, you have to do what you have to do.

Does that mean I would be tolerant of a high-profile public servant doing it? Absolutely not. Those who make the law must obey the law without exception, or how are we ordinary Joes expected to take any of it seriously? The things that are most corrosive of faith in the legal system are where the law-makers become law-breakers and get away with it.

The last three years have afforded us many examples, none of them very edifying.

If Huhne is guilty (and from what I have seen of the evidence I think he probably is) then I hope he goes down for a long time. Pour encourager les autres, and because justice demands it. If he gets off on a technicality, or if he is found guilty but given a small fine, then look out for a million ordinary citizens doing the same thing. That can't be good.

(Footnote: if he is found guilty, what a delicious irony that the offence committed by the Minister for Climate Change was in a Toyota Pious.)

Evil Tory Petrolheads Willing to Sacrifice Tiny Children Shock

At long last, there appears to be some serious debate about raising the archaic 70 mph speed limit on motorways, and a proposal to raise it to 80 mph. From the BBC website:

The Department of Transport is to launch a consultation on increasing the speed limit on England and Wales' motorways from 70mph to 80mph.

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the current limit, introduced in 1965, was out of date due to "huge advances in safety and motoring technology".

About time, too. Apparently, the DoT thinks that 49% of drivers flout the current limit. Apparently, the DoT needs to get out more and put some miles in. When I drive or ride on the motorway, the default speed for the majority of cars and bikes is 80 mph. Some go slower, some go faster, but 80 is where you are in the flow of the traffic. So a change to the law would only be legitimising something that happens already, and which the police appear to be happy with.

But that isn't a good argument for raising the limit. Philip Hammond was interviewed on BBC News Channel this evening, and Matthew Amroliwala challenged him, saying that just because people break the law does not mean the law should be changed. After all, people burgle houses, but we don't say "well, people are doing it anyway, so we might as well legalise it". Hammond swerved that one, and started talking about improved technology, whereas he should have been firm that this was not the reason for the proposals.

Where Hammond was on surer ground was when he said the law was 'discredited'. He's right: very few people act as if they believe that they are only safe at 69 mph and likely to die a horrible death if they stray up to 71. People know that the limit was introduced by Tom Fraser (in response to a number of serious accidents in fog, work that one out) and made permanent by Barbara Castle, the non-driving 'motorists' friend', at a time when most cars were pretty much flat out at 70 and ABS was still a rare option on high-end motors. In a modern car (or on a modern bike), 70 is pretty much a mid-point in the vehicle's capabilities. My car cruises at 70 with around 2000 rpm on the clock - less than halfway to the redline - and if I am going for it, the Sprint is just into second gear at this speed. Add in the inherent reliability and stability of modern vehicles (think Ford Focus compared to Ford Zephyr), pre-tensioning seat belts, radial tyres, airbags, crumple zones, passenger safety cells, brake assist, stability control, traction control and the universal fitting of ABS to cars, and it becomes obvious that the limit set in 1965 is way, way out of date. Everyone knows this, and most people treat the 70 limit more as something to keep the speed cameras happy than anything to do with safety.

Matthew Amroliwala tried to argue that, just because a law was discredited, it does not mean that it should be repealed. But that's exactly what should happen. Human laws are not handed down on tablets of stone from a deity who must be obeyed; they are the expressions of someone's will. In a democracy, one might hope that they would be expressions of the popular will, but perhaps that is too much to ask. Nevertheless, man made the law, and if man thinks it is no longer appropriate, man should change it. Unless you are arguing that the 70 limit was the hidden item 11 on the tablets Moses received, then any law is up for debate. That is right and proper.

There are two substantive objections that will plague the debate from start to finish. One is the likelihood of slightly increased casualties. Bluntly, raising the limit is unlikely to cause any more accidents, but those that do occur are likely to be slightly more severe. Yes, a few extra people will die. Hammond's response was the argument from utility: the small number of extra casualties will be more than outweighed by the benefits to the economy and people's personal lives through the reduction in journey times. Amroliwala spluttered at this, and you could almost hear the "if it saves one life ..." mantra waiting to be uttered. But Hammond stood his ground and said that if no-one went out of the house, then we could have no accidents at all, but that this was really not a sustainable state of affairs. Good for him.

The second is the environmental argument - increased vehicle speed will mean increased emissions. I don't think you can deny that, although I would argue the point from pollution/fumes/smog (which I detest) rather than CO2 and Global Warming Climate Change Disruption (which I don't believe in), but the argument from utility is relevant here too. There may well be a small increase in vehicle emissions, but this may be counterbalanced by greater ecomonic benefits elsewhere. This is surely what the consultation is set up to debate and discover.

But rest assured that there will be a lively debate, with loud and heart-rending interjections by the mental environists and the cotton-wool safety ninnies.

Me, I'm not sure it will make much difference. I'll take myself as an example, and assume that at least some people will think like me. Sometimes, I burble along at 60, enjoying the economy and a slower pace. The 70 limit is irrelevant then. Sometimes I like to blast along (conditions permitting) and have been known to travel long distances at three-figure speeds (on private land, of course). When I am doing this, whether the limit is 70 or 80 doesn't matter a hoot. I'm looking at a ban whatever, if I am caught. But my normal speed, in moderate traffic, is between 70 and about 85 mph. That's the speed that gets me where I am going in a reasonable time, without causing undue stress to my brain, or putting me in undue danger from other road users. If the limit is raised to 80, will I rack it up and start riding at between 80 and 95? I don't think so. In fact, the opposite effect may happen: if the new limit is 80, I may well decide that I am happy with that, avoid the stress of watching my mirrors, and stay legal. Paradoxically, raising the limit may actually reduce average speeds.

Think of it from the police's point of view: currently, most drivers/riders on the motorway are over the limit. What do they do? They can't catch and prosecute them all, so they fall back on formulas such as the limit + 10% + 2 that ACPO own up to, and it all gets complicated. If the limit were raised and most people were actually obeying the law, the police are then free to go after the real dangers, the nutters who think 120 on a crowded motorway is a good idea, or who change lanes without looking or signalling.

Two years ago, I posted how drivers on the unrestricted sections of autobahn in Germany were extremely good at sticking to speed limits when they were posted, such as around road works. My theory was (and is) that where people can see that speed limits are imposed where necessary, and for a good reason, they will obey them. The same logic may apply to the raising of the 70 limit to 80: if people recognise that it is a reasonable compromise, maybe they will be happier to stick to it.

I'm delighted that the issue is being debated at all. In the current safety-obsessed culture, I thought that a mature discussion of speed limits would never arise, unless it was to ratchet them down further. So at least two cheers for Philip Hammond and the Tories for daring to raise the subject. Apart from the aforementioned Greens and Ninnies, it would be immensely popular.

And the coalition need some good news right now.

UPDATE: Wolfers is less impressed.

The Wasps of Pendine

Today I went to Pendine Sands to watch the attempt on the UK Electric Land Speed Record (details here).

It's not been a great day, despite the weather improving from a drizzly start to a glorious finish. I got there shortly after 1 pm, to hear that the record attempt had been postponed after the Bluebird had hit some soft sand and sustained some damage. The attempt would be delayed by an hour or so, and so I found my mates from the Triumph Club and we sat in the sunshine with a beer and some fish and chips. Perfect seaside fare, except that we were plagued by wasps. For the first time in my life I was served fish and chips in a box.



Nowhere in the world does fish and chips like Yorkshire does, and this was disappointing fare. I'm one of the old school who thinks that the newsprint added flavour, and that the modern fashion for clean white paper (or, whisper it, a polystyrene clamshell and a fork) is just a poofy fad which will never catch on. So having them in a cardboard box like a, well, like a pizza actually, was definitely an offence against culinary tradition.

I then strolled onto the sands to watch the entertainment and had an ice-cream. (Awful.) I met a couple of the other guys and we chatted for a while. We then heard over the tannoy that the Bluebird would be making its way back to the start line (where we were standing) to re-charge and make another attempt. Re-charging takes about half an hour, and is accomplished by a huge portable generator pulled behind a truck. You can see it in the middle of the picture.



Perhaps this is the solution for the 'range anxiety' said to be the main reason why motorists are not clamouring for electric vehicles at the moment. Each electric car to tow its own generator, fuelled by - well, petrol, naturally. It's all brilliantly thought out. The emissions don't count if they come from somewhere else, like - er - a power station.

The man on the tannoy then said that while driving back to the start, the Bluebird had hit another patch of soft sand and had broken its nose-cone and shaken the driver up a bit. Both were OK, but the record attempt would now be delayed until 5.30 pm. I expected to be home by then (the grass is like a forest after the France trip, and this has been the first dry day), so I decided to leave. First, I called in at the Museum of Speed to catch a look at the famous Babs, the car which killed J. G. Parry-Thomas in 1927 during an attempt to win back the land speed record from Malcolm Campbell, and which was buried under the dunes of Pendine until it was excavated and restored in the 1960s and 70s by Owen Wyn Owen. It is now in running order and is quite a sight.



It's much, much bigger than it looks here.

I started the bike and set off down the main road in Pendine. I was travelling at only 10-15 mph and had not yet put my visor down, and a Pendine Wasp flew into my face and wedged itself between my cheek and the side of the helmet. It stung me and then, in revenge at my poking it out with a gloved finger, stung me again. I pulled over, ripped off the helmet and inspected the damage. Of course I couldn't see it, as it was on my cheek a little below my eye, so I asked a passing Young Mum if she would have a look at it. Luckily, she turned out to be a nurse, so I was quickly examined and pronounced alive and in no immediate danger. However, it hurt like hell and was making my eye water, so I abandoned plans to meet up with the guys for a cup of tea later and made it straight for home.



Bastard.

S'pose I'd better cut the grass ...

Bluebird Electric

The Bluebird Electric car set eight UK Electric Land Speed records ten years ago, including the outright UK Land Speed record for an electric vehicle. In 2011, the development team are using the existing Bluebird Electric car to test battery technologies and drive systems in an attempt to develop an electric car that will reach 500 mph. That goal is a long way off, but this year the team are attempting to break some of the existing records as part of the development plan.

This weekend, they will be at Pendine Sands in Carmarthenshire, the scene of several world record attempts many years ago. Sir Malcolm Campbell set the world speed record here in the original Blue Bird in 1924 (a measured mile at 146 mph) and broke his own record in 1927 with a speed of 175 mph. (More on Pendine here, when I visited in March.)

The car will be driven by Don Wales, the grandson of Sir Malcolm. He will be attempting to break his own UK record of 137 mph that he set in 2000, and hopes to top 150 mph this time. The world record is 307 mph, set by the American Buckeye Bullet 2.5 team last year.

BBC report here. Bluebird Electric website here.

I will be there on Sunday, and I'll try to take some good photos.

Kettle on Huhne: where to start?

I have read things in The Guardian that I have disagreed with. I have read things that have made my blood boil. I have read things that have made me shake my head with disbelief. But I have never read such a pile of freshly-delivered, aromatic, steaming horse-shit as Martin Kettle writes today.

Investigating Chris Huhne is disproportionate

Sorry, but I am afraid that I just don't get it about the current hue and cry over Chris Huhne and his alleged transfer of speeding points. Yes, of course, I know he shouldn't have driven too fast on the M11 in 2003. And, if true, I also know he shouldn't have persuaded his wife to accept the penalty on her licence rather than his own – though for the record he denies it. In a perfect world, Huhne would have accepted his punishment if he was guilty, as most of us do in such circumstances.

So far, so good. You can hear a 'but' coming, though.

But let's get real.

*grinds teeth*

And let's start with the nature of the offence. Speeding on a motorway is technically a crime. But, except in the most egregious and genuinely dangerous of cases, it is not a very serious one.

First of all, he's wrong. Speeding is not a crime, it is a traffic offence and - absent any aggravating circumstances - will not get you a criminal record. But other than that I would agree. Speeding is something that most motorists and riders do almost daily to a greater or lesser extent, and it's hardly a hanging offence. But then Kettle and I start to part company.

And let's also get real about the fact that lots of people do what Huhne is accused of doing [asking his wife to say she was driving and take the penalty points on his behalf]. I think I read somewhere that one in six speeding fines that would take an offender to the point of losing their licence are transferred to consenting spouses, partners or buddies. Maybe that's false information, but – again – I suspect most of us know people who have done what Huhne and his wife are accused of doing.

In this, Kettle is completely wrong. I don't know anyone who has done this. I have read about it happening in the papers, but I don't know anyone personally who has admitted it to me. To be honest, it would affect my opinion of them very considerably, and very much for the worse. It goes without saying that I could not countenance doing this myself. Martin Kettle must mix with some dishonest people.

Speeding is one thing. Lying to a court (which is what you do if you enter false driver details on the form) in order to escape a legitimate punishment is very different matter. I'm not sure if it is perjury - I think that may refer to lying in court under oath - but it is certainly perverting the course of justice. And that is rightly regarded as a very serious offence in this country: so serious that it is punishable by imprisonment for a first offence and carries a maximum of a life term.

The current investigation is utterly disproportionate to the nature of the offence. Police time and resources – we are constantly being told – are under huge strain as 20% cuts begin to bite. Is it a worthwhile use of those resources to have Essex police tracking back and interviewing Huhne over a speeding offence eight years ago? I think not. The only reason it's happening is because the press and the Labour party want to embarrass Huhne. In my book, though, that's not a good enough reason. I think the Essex investigation is a waste of resources and it should be called off.

A Member of Parliament, a Cabinet Minister, is accused of an offence which strikes at the very nature and practice of justice, and you want us to let it pass? I don't think so. Those who expect the rest of us to obey the laws that they introduce must be scrupulous in obeying them themselves, and if they fall short they must be treated exactly as anyone else would be. Democracy demands it.

But don't just listen to me. Here are the words of Judge Michael Heath, sentencing a 77-year-old man who had taken the blame for his son's speeding offence to spare him a driving ban:

That is a serious offence. It strikes at the fabric of justice. The message must go out that people who do this, and who say they don’t think they are doing anything seriously wrong, will not get away with it. I have considered your health and domestic circumstances, but I am not persuaded any sentence should be suspended.

He jailed the 77-year-old and his son for three months. Should Huhne be treated any differently if he is charged and found guilty? I don't think so.

Huhne has not been charged and deserves to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but to say that this case should not be investigated because it was 8 years ago, it's a trivial matter anyway, and it's something we all do, is despicable.

Things are not looking good for Huhne. When asked by Channel 4 News for a comment yesterday, he repeated the words that he has used ever since this all started: the allegations are "incorrect". I wonder why he didn't use a simpler English word: wrong? The irony is that if he had just accepted the fine, points and a short ban, people would have shrugged and forgotten it in a week. Now, his career is in serious jeopardy and he is possibly - if guilty - looking at a stretch in prison.

Martin Kettle has just shot himself in the foot as a serious journalist, for me and, if the comments below the line are anything to go by, most of The Guardian's readership too. I have never seen such unanimity amongst the CiF chatterati. They rip him apart.

Thought experiment: replace 'Chris Huhne' with 'Nick Griffin' and imagine the same article appearing in The Guardian.

Motorway Speed Limits

Another day, another poll from the IAM. This time it's on whether to increase the speed limits on motorways. No need to be a member; they are interested in as many opinions as possible.

The 70 limit was introduced in 1965, in response to a spate of serious accidents on the motorway network. The accidents that triggered the move were in foggy conditions, and it is hard to imagine how a theoretical speed limit would stop people who were happy to drive at that sort of speed in thick fog, but then logic has never been the strong suit of those in charge of the transport network. Of course, the limit had to be introduced for all roads, otherwise you would have the ridiculous situation of the motorways having a lower limit than a country lane. It's amazing to think it now, but before 1965 you could drive at any speed you wanted as long as you were out of a built-up area. This situation still obtains in the Isle of Man, of course. The killjoys haven't got round to that yet.

Another reason for the introduction of the limit was that AC Cars were caught testing the prototype for the Cobra at 196 mph on the M1. This was obviously not acceptable to Transport Minister Barbara Castle (a non-driver), an early example of that curious state of mind amongst our elders and betters that if it is fun, it must be stopped. Can you imagine the Italian police round Maranello stopping all the Ferrari test drivers and asking them to be a bit more careful? Round there, the locals come out and line the streets and would be disappointed if the drivers didn't put on a bit of a show. The thought of hamstringing an iconic Italian manufacturer by petty 'safety' regulation wouldn't enter their heads.



The 70 limit was introduced with very little debate. As most family cars could barely exceed that speed in 1965, I suppose it seemed a reasonable measure. Is it still reasonable? The engines, brakes, handling and passive safety of even the most humble hatchback far exceed the technology available 45 years ago. There aren't many cars that can't cruise comfortably at 90 mph, and in fact from the motorway driving that I do it seems that the default speed for most people is around 80 in clear conditions. I think there is a good case for increasing the limit to 80 or even 90 mph. In fact, there is a good case for removing the limit altogether, and applying limits according to need - see my post on speed limits in Germany. I wrote:

I have a theory. In Germany, on much of the autobahn network, there are no speed limits. People are trusted to make their own decisions about how fast they go. When there is a reason to do so, speed limits are imposed, in a sensible way, and removed as soon as they are not needed. Because of this, German drivers seem far more prepared to observe speed limits than British drivers are. They recognise that they are there for everyone's benefit, and used in specific circumstances, rather than as a blanket control measure designed to take the fun out of motoring and raise some cash from the motorist at the same time. I didn't see a single speed camera or traffic patrol car in Germany, and yet the compliance with speed limits was far higher than in our camera-infested country.

But of course that will never happen - at least, not under any current version of Labour (red, blue or yellow) that has the chance of being in government in the foreseeable future.

Would increasing or even removing the current limit increase pollution through the slightly higher fuel consumption of vehicles travelling 10 mph faster? Probably not: the improvement in traffic flow would probably cancel that out. Would it increase the number or severity of accidents? I doubt it. Motorway accidents happen generally because of poor driving habits in general and poor lane discipline in particular, and seem to me to bear little relation to speed.

Go and tell the IAM what you think, or leave a comment here. Or both, of course.

UPDATE: as before, the IAM site isn't letting me access the poll page. Keep trying.

Speeding Poll

The IAM are conducting a poll on speeding. They want as many people as possible (members and non-members) to take part as they are seeking a "wide range of views".

The poll is on this page; head down to 'Speeding Poll'. Sorry I can't link directly, but it looks as if there is something in place to prevent the 'vote early and vote often' brigade, and I couldn't return to the page.

And be honest ...

You have until 19 September.

If you're going to get caught, do it properly

A Swedish man took his six-litre Mercedes SLS to Switzerland and was caught on the A12 motorway (speed limit 120 kph) doing almost 300 kph. That's 180 mph in real money. He had passed many speed cameras, but had not been snapped because he was going too fast - most of the cameras can only read up to 200 kph. Only when he passed a new-generation camera that could react to his speed was he zapped.

The Swiss system of fines is based on the offender's income as well as the severity of the offence, and this guy appears to have drawn himself a poor hand. With a car costing £140,000, and caught at a speed described as the fastest anyone has ever been caught travelling in Switzerland, he was going to have his trousers taken down, that's for sure.

£650,000. A fine of over half-a-million pounds.

Now, the guy is probably a complete dick, and I have no time for those who use their money and clout to flout the law that other, lesser, people have to obey. But isn't that just a tiny bit draconian? That's an average UK worker's gross salary for about 30 years.

More to the point, how many people in Europe have been killed by drivers doing 180 mph on an autoroute, compared with the number killed by drink-drivers? I suspect the answers are zero, and lots.

(Source.)

Oh, and ...

Just one last positive thought for 2009.

A few days ago, I renewed the bike insurance, and got a cracking deal from eBike (both bikes, fully comp, £175). They wanted details of previous convictions, and when I finally dug out my licence and checked on the Directgov website, I realised that I now have a clean licence. My 'offence' was in 2005, and the points stay on your licence for four years, so I am now officially rehabilitated and inoffensive.

There is something deep inside me that likes this, and I am very keen to preserve my newly-pristine status. Not by conforming mindlessly to the unintelligent blunt instrument that is our speeding legislation, but by not getting caught again. There are ways ...

A country of criminals

No, not Government Ministers - I mean the rest of us. I was struck by a comment on this article on The Times website:

This government has created so many new criminal offences and civil penalties that it is delightful to see the Attorney General become a victim of its legislation. As a lawyer practising criminal defence I've been saying for years that it will in due course become the accepted norm in society to have a conviction or two. By 'criminalising' so many people (and in particular children), the rule of law is severely weakened and morality, good character and integrity become less and less important.

In reckon that only about 20% of the pressure to obey the law comes from the consideration of penalties for breaking it. The other 80% comes from the desire not to be seen to be a lawbreaker. In other words, when I think about what is stopping me robbing a post office and retiring on the takings, it is only partly about the prison that might follow (let's face it, without a criminal record, I reckon the chances of being caught would be small). Far more is the idea of having a criminal conviction to my name, and the prospect of that old-fashioned idea that we don't hear much about today - shame. (I am talking about deterrents here, before you leap in - I wouldn't rob a post office because in the first case it is immoral and wrong. I am talking only about the deterrent sanctions that society has to regulate itself.)

I think 'Chris the Brief' has it about right. While laws were few and generally agreed to be 'right' (such as those against murder, rape, robbery or fraud), comparatively few people were convicted of breaking them, and the majority of the population behaved itself, keeping well on the side of the law-abiding. The level of compliance is very high. But when laws multiply exponentially, as they seem to have done in the last ten years, more and more people will commit some kind of offence, even unwittingly, and the value of being in the innocent majority will be lost. Add to that the fact that a lot of the laws passed recently do not necessarily have the support of the majority of the public (such as the 'hate speech' laws or the smoking and hunting bans), and you have a recipe for a gradual decline in the general unspoken support for the rule of law that we once had.

When I was 18, and had been driving a car for a whole six weeks, I was caught speeding by a policeman with a speed detector gun. I was fined and got an 'endorsement', as we used to call them, on my licence. I had to deal with explaining it to my Dad, whose car it was, and the insurers, and so on. It was difficult, and I felt that I had transgressed in quite a serious way. I got another endorsement four years later, this time on a motorbike (biking readers will choke with laughter when I reveal that my only speeding conviction on two wheels was on a Jawa). This had to be declared every time I took out motor insurance, and there was a faint sucking of teeth at the other end whenever I mentioned it.

And after that - nothing. I held a clean licence for the next 26 years, and it was a source of pride. I used to enjoy the tiny little buzz that came whenever I had to tick a box for 'convictions' on things like insurance applications, and could tick the box marked 'none'. I passed my car and bike tests for the IAM and felt that I was a sensible and responsible motorist - one of the law-abiding majority. There was a certain sense of security in this, and also an internal pressure to keep it that way.

Then one night I was caught by a Gatso. I was driving up the A15 in Lincolnshire, returning my daughters to their Mum after a weekend away. We had stopped for a Big Mac in Lincoln, and were a bit behind schedule. There is a stretch of the A15 going past Waddingham airfield which had been reduced to 50 mph because the Red Arrows were based there, and there were a number of accidents through people looking at the sky rather than where they were going. The Red Arrows were long gone, but the speed limit remained (no-one should be surprised at this). And I broke it that night, recorded by a camera that didn't understand that 60 was quite safe on an empty road in good weather, in the way that a proper policeman might have done.

I didn't contest it, as I was sure I was guilty, but I was mightily pissed off by it - not because of the fine, but because I no longer had a clean licence. That was important to me. And then, a revelation. A couple of years later, I was invited by Saga to apply for their car insurance (yes, I had reached that milestone). I confessed my sins, and the girl on the other end of the phone dismissed it. "Don't worry at all." she said. "Most of our customers have at least one conviction. We don't bother about three points - start worrying when you get to nine."

That got me thinking. If everyone has three points, what't the problem? It's no longer seen as unacceptable, or a mark of anti-social behaviour - it's just something that everyone has, like underarm hair. So when those points passed away and I almost immediately got three more (which I contested, as I was certain I was not guilty*), it wasn't so much of a problem. In fact, my attitude now is - as long as it doesn't cost me money in increased premiums, I really don't care. Three points, six points, we've all got them, welcome to the club. Now it takes a drink-driving conviction to get people tut-tutting - but if the blood alcohol levels are reduced even further, how long before people are saying "Oh, drink-driving, yes everyone's got one of those."

If you extrapolate this experience onto the wider world of social order and the rule of law, I think it's pretty disturbing. Keeping a clean sheet is a massive incentive to stay on the right side of the law. So is the disapproval of other people when you transgress. If we pass so many laws that no-one can obey them all, then no-one can keep a clean sheet, and no-one minds when other people get caught out. Add to this the way that a lot of new laws are contentious, partisan or simply vindictive, and you have a recipe for anarchy.

An urgent task for the next Government (asuming it is not Labour) is to have a review of all the laws and regulations that have been enacted since 1997, and a bonfire of all those that are stupid, petty, vindictive or unfair. Hopeful? I'm not.

* How's this for justice? I was fined £60 for an SP30, if I didn't argue and paid up quickly. I genuinely believed that the machine was faulty (the date was right, but the time of the offence was a time when I was several miles away in a meeting, and also I was certain my speedometer read 31 mph at the time I was seen) and I contested it. They still found me guilty, but increased the fine to £90 and added £150 costs on top. So that's £60 for speeding, and £180 for having the bare-faced cheek to challenge the system. Imagine that in a 'developing' country - a system where you are given a punishment without any due process, and told it will be quadrupled if you protest your innocence. We'd be invading them to 'liberate' their people and 'give them the benefits of democracy' before you could say knife.